"Biological sex is a multidimensional variable with various components" - Thread 3

[MissScarletInTheBallroom]

Starting a new thread so I can respond to @suggestionsplease1 's most recent post.

The fact that women and girls have in fact been sexually assaulted by trans identifying men in female only spaces in the UK (as evidenced by the fact that some of them have been convicted of and are serving prison sentences for doing so) is proof that your statement is not true.

So, bearing in mind that there are (statistically likely to be thousands of) trans identifying men who have committed sexual offences currently at liberty in the UK, why do you think it is a good idea for those men to be allowed to use women's toilets and changing rooms?

How can we possibly safeguard women and girls from men like Katie Dolatowski if this is allowed?

To continue on Backtolurk's point about Nordic countries showing high rates of sexual assault, I think this article highlights some relevant points about recording and reporting differences across countries:

www.bbc.com/news/magazine-19592372

I disagree with your maths that has led you to believe that there are thousands of trans women who have committed sexual offences in the UK.

I just want to know why suggestionsplease1 doesn't think that women should have boundaries.

Why are you putting the wishes of male people above reasonable boundaries for female people?

Why?

Do you believe that the conviction rate for sexual offences committed by trans identifying men is 100% (and that once convicted they are never released from prison), when the conviction rate for sexual offences committed by other men is less than 2%?

If so, can you show your working?

If not, there are indeed a great many trans identifying men who have committed sexual offences currently at liberty.

I guess we disagree on what reasonable boundaries are. The evidence shows that women are not at increased risk from trans people using bathrooms of their gender ID
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13178-018-0335-z

The evidence shows that women and girls have actually been sexually assaulted by trans identifying men in women's spaces.

How can allowing them free access to these spaces not increase the risk to those women and girls?

Why do you think "not wanting to get changed in the presence of a potential rapist" is an unreasonable boundary for women and girls to have?

Why do you think women are at risk from some male people but not others? Or do you think males as a class don’t pose a threat to women?

ChatGPT
You said:
Can you challenge the logic and maths of the following analysis please:

"There are 76 trans woman serving prison sentences for a sexual offence.

It is estimated that fewer than 3% of reported sexual assaults result in someone being charged, and fewer than 2% of reported sexual assaults result in someone being convicted.

Based on that, if 76 trans women are currently in prison for a sexual offence, the number of trans women who have actually committed a sexual offence is probably in excess of 3000, almost all of whom are currently at liberty"

ChatGPT said:
You're right to be skeptical of this argument — it misuses statistics and commits several logical and mathematical errors. Let's break it down and challenge it on several fronts:

🔍 CLAIM SUMMARY
“There are 76 trans women serving prison sentences for sexual offences.
Only 2% of reported sexual assaults lead to conviction.
Therefore, the actual number of trans women who have committed sexual assaults must be over 3,000.”

🧠 CRITICAL FLAWS IN LOGIC & MATH

1. Base Rate Fallacy

The analysis does not account for the size of the total trans women population, which is essential for determining whether 76 is disproportionately high or low.

Why it matters: If trans women make up 0.5% of the population, then you'd expect them to represent 0.5% of sexual offenders unless there is evidence of different rates of offending.

The raw number “76” tells us nothing about prevalence without population context.

1. Faulty Inversion of Statistics

The author misuses the “2% conviction rate” to extrapolate backward — from convictions to estimates of total crimes committed. This is invalid reasoning unless specific conditions are met.

The 2% conviction rate refers to the general population and includes all kinds of sexual assault cases — not only those by trans women.

It is not statistically sound to apply this general figure to a small, specific subpopulation without direct evidence.

1. Misuse of Probabilities and Linear Scaling

They assume a linear relationship: “If 2% of offences are convicted, then 76 convictions means 76 ÷ 0.02 = 3,800 offences.”

That’s wrong for three reasons:

Conviction rate ≠ inverse of offence count. Many assumptions (like equal reporting rates and prosecution likelihood across groups) must hold for this formula to work.

It assumes that trans women offend and get reported at the same rate as everyone else — there's no evidence offered for that.

It also assumes no duplicate offenders (e.g., that each convicted person = one offence), which is often false.

1. Neglect of Selection Bias

Prison statistics do not represent the total population, just the subset that has been:

Reported,

Investigated,

Prosecuted, and

Sentenced to a custodial term.

This excludes:

Those given non-custodial sentences,

Those detained pre-trial,

Those found not guilty,

And those never reported.

The logic of scaling up prison numbers is flawed unless the prison population is a representative sample, which it isn't.

1. No Causal Link or Comparative Rate

Even if there were 3,000 trans women who had committed offences (a hypothetical), is that a high rate?

Without comparing this to the number of cisgender men who commit sexual offences (which is vastly higher), the claim lacks meaningful context.

Sexual offence rates are far more strongly correlated with male socialisation, past trauma, or other criminological factors than gender identity per se.

Evidence shows women have been assaulted by trans women in single sex spaces.

The risk factor is maleness not transness.

At any rate I don't want to share single sex spaces with male people whether they are trans women or not.

Why do you ignore my wishes and reasonable boundaries?

And as for 'reasonable' are you immune to what some trans women do in women's bathrooms, there is video evidence of it all over parts of the internet?

Why is it unreasonable to say no to those kind of behaviours?

In my mind the risk that "trans women" pose is not even the issue. It's men. All men.

Take "Rose" and the Darlington Nurses. To me it is quite clear that Rose is, at the very least, a pervert and a flasher. The Darlington Nurses have been assaulted and not only are they not believed, they are vilified! And their attacker is applauded!

It's disgusting.

I've no doubt this happens regularly and, were it not for the lifeline of the SC ruling, would continue to happen. I'm sure that trans women who -believe that they- pass will continue to use wrong sex facilities and that's fine as long as they keep their maleness to themselves. It is comforting to me to know that if they step out of line, women have the law on their side to say "actually, no, you don't belong here. Get out".

Can I ask SuggestionsPlease and Tandora- is everyone who says they are trans Trans?

Tandora has been talking about a groundbreaking new understanding of biology that means sex isn’t about reproductive function, or the physical structure of the body.

Do we treat everyone who says they are trans as being trans?
Because it’s really important, given that we have no external way of knowing who is trans. If everyone who says they are trans is trans, then we no longer have the sex category. It doesn’t exist.

The only people whose sex we will know are the male people who inherit titles whether transwomen or not, and the female people who don’t inherit titles whether they are transmen or not.
Other than that, it’s a free for all. No more women’s sport, no more women’s prisons, no more men’s sheds, no more men’s darts.

Is that the plan? Because I see flaws.

thanks for the new thread.

I was just taking a quick Look at Twitter and this came up

Having recently been to NYC I can attest that there are a lot of gender neutral toilets in the parks now. In the city such as Central Park, and further afield.

There are also single sex loos in much newer buildings (thankfully) and the Met. With huge gaps beneath them.

where it was fucked up is where a set of single sex loos with huge gaps have been turned into mixed sex.

Several countries have had gender self ID laws in place for years now - but they are not experiencing the collapse in society you imagine!

Here's an article on how Denmark has navigated this, and addresses some of the points you bring up:

www.context.news/socioeconomic-inclusion/denmarks-decade-of-self-id-cools-debate-on-trans-rights

"In August 2022, authorities in Denmark told Transgender Europe there had been no cases of individuals using the self-determination process with fraudulent or criminal intentions since its introduction.

"I wouldn't say that self-ID has been any threat to women's rights movement in Denmark - actually I would more say the opposite," said Helene Forsberg, director of the Women's Council Denmark, an umbrella NGO for more than 40 rights organisations, who noted it was not one of the group’s focus points.

"Many parts of society unfortunately try to make some kind of opposition between (trans rights and women's rights), which I don't believe there is."

1. ChatGPT was programmed by people whose opinions align with yours. It is not a neutral source, nor is it actually intelligent.
2. Trans identifying men have received preferential treatment by the UK criminal justice system at the point of conviction and sentencing. Their lawyers have used their alleged struggles with their gender identify to attempt to downplay the the severity of their crimes. Male rapists have been sent to women's prisons on the grounds that their safety is at risk in men's prisons. No other men have been allowed to serve their sentences in women's prisons for this reason, and the risk assessments that were conducted when deciding to allow trans identifying men to do so focused only on the safety impact on those trans identifying men themselves and not that of the female prisoners with whom they were to be incarcerated. Do you really think it is likely that the criminal justice system treats them more harshly than other men at the prosecution stage? Why do you think this is a sensible assumption to make?
3. The suggestion that 3000 trans identifying men at liberty might not be a high number is q horrifying one, even when made by a soulless computer algorithm probably programmed by incels. Even in the US, which has a population more four times the size of ours, that would be an average of 60 per state. Significantly more in large, trans friendly states such as California. In the UK it would be about 60 per county.
4. You'll note that ChatGPT confidently dismisses the 76 currently serving sex offenders figure as meaningless without knowing what proportion of the overall population trans identifying men make up, but doesn't even query the population size issue when suggesting that 3000 might not be a high number.

That's the trouble with AI. Put shit in, get (biased) shit out.

It doesn’t matter.

we do not have self ID in the uk.

single sex provision is necessary for safeguarding.

Other counties will have these issues now which will eventually make more headlines and will reverse policy.

We have been unable to find evidence that any mechanism was put in place for evaluating the impact of the change on the experience of women and girls, for example in relation to single sex services and spaces. This may reflect the wider context: in 2014 the European Agency for Fundamental Rights ranked Denmark as the EU country with the highest occurrence of male physical violence and sexual assault against women.

https://murrayblackburnmackenzie.org/2022/06/18/lessons-from-denmark/

I’m not asking how it’s working out somewhere else. That’s interesting, but not relevant. It may work well statistically, it may work well for a majority, it may be catastrophic for some people who haven’t been taken into account. It may be that the future reveals issues that aren’t yet visible. It may be that it’s a singularly enlightened country ready to navigate these things.
That isn’t the question.

I’m asking whether everyone who says they are trans is trans.

So women just have to put up with the kind of vile male behaviours in women's single sex spaces that you seem to determined to ignore, do we suggestionsplease1?

I find your determination to put men first quite shocking in the light of the things that we know happens in women's single sex spaces when we let men (including those with trans identities) in.

that’s opinion.

the evidence is clear. rates of offending amongst trans identified males are the same as men, if not higher.

just because other countries arr doing it and seem quite happy (according to one individual) doesn’t mean it’s right and progressive.

Helene Forsberg says “I don’t believe” there is a threat to women’s rights.

She’s not giving evidence. She’s giving her own opinion.

In my experience @suggestionsplease1 , the ‘GC’ women I know spend a lot of time rigorously testing their ideas. They tend to seek out opposing arguments, and read around articles, data and reports. Particularly those that support their views, rather than just blindly accepting them. It might help you to do the same.

Safeguarding law, specifically for children, relies on ONE instance of harm occurring and then the safeguards are put in place to ensure it cannot be repeated.

At least that is how it should work.

there are documented cases whereby transwomen have assaulted children in public single sex toilets in the U.K.

you are not going to convince anyone that that doesn’t matter.

you should be campaigning to make sure predatory men do not identify as transwomen. But, there’s the issue; how do we tell which is which? 🤔

I disagree that it is biased. It challenges logic and maths in a sound manner, you could replace 'trans woman's with any other demographic and it would generate the same response.

In reference to 'put shit in, get shit out' well...it was your 'shit' that was put in!

The argument that “76 trans women in prison means 3,000+ have committed sexual offences” is statistically and logically flawed for several reasons:
1. Misapplied conviction rate: The 2% conviction figure refers to all reported sexual assaults, not offences by trans women. It cannot be reliably used to extrapolate how many trans women may have committed offences. Applying a general rate to a small subgroup without adjusting for differences in population size, reporting patterns, or legal outcomes is invalid.
2. Lack of population context: The figure “76” means nothing without knowing how many trans women exist in the population overall. Without this denominator, we can't assess whether the rate of offending is higher, lower, or similar to other groups (e.g., cisgender men).
3. Invalid scaling logic: Multiplying 76 by 50 (based on 2%) assumes that the criminal justice system misses 98% of offenders in a mathematically neat and consistent way. This is not how crime data or convictions work — it ignores reporting bias, repeat offenders, false reports, and variation in prosecution practices.
4. Selection bias: Prisoners represent a small, highly filtered group — only those reported, charged, and sentenced to custody. They are not a representative sample of the whole population. Scaling from prison numbers to an estimated total of unknown offenders is methodologically unsound.
5. No comparative rate: Even if the estimate were accurate (which it isn't), it still doesn’t show whether trans women offend at higher rates than others. Without comparing the per-capita offence rate of trans women to that of cis men, such claims are misleading.
In short, this argument draws sweeping conclusions from narrow and misused data. If we want to understand patterns of offending, we need rigorous, peer-reviewed research — not arithmetic built on speculative assumptions.